In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that bail cannot be conditioned on financial payments for recovering complainant’s dues. The court held that courts granting bail must strictly adhere to legal principles laid down under Sections 437-439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan set aside an order by the Bombay High Court, which had upheld a condition requiring the accused to deposit ₹40 lakh as a prerequisite for bail. The apex court ruled that such financial conditions violate fundamental principles of bail jurisprudence and are not legally sustainable.
Case Background
The case arose from bail proceedings involving Apruva Kirti Mehta, the appellant, who was granted bail by the Sessions Judge, Maharashtra, on May 19, 2023. While granting bail, the Sessions Court acknowledged that the investigation was complete, and a charge sheet had been filed under Section 173(2) of the CrPC. However, the court imposed a financial condition requiring the appellant to deposit ₹40 lakh, of which ₹10 lakh was to be paid upfront, while the remaining ₹30 lakh was to be paid in six installments.
The appellant, unable to meet the financial requirement, filed an application to modify the bail condition. However, the Sessions Court rejected the plea on August 29, 2023. Subsequently, the complainant sought cancellation of bail, arguing that the accused had violated the financial condition. The Sessions Court revoked the bail on June 29, 2024.
The appellant then approached the Bombay High Court, which dismissed his appeal on September 19, 2024, citing that the accused had voluntarily agreed to the financial condition. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant challenged the High Court’s ruling before the Supreme Court.
Important Legal Issues
1. Can courts impose financial conditions for granting bail?
– The primary question before the Supreme Court was whether a bail condition requiring the accused to deposit a monetary sum was legally valid.
2. Does an accused’s voluntary statement justify such financial conditions?
– The High Court had relied on the accused’s voluntary statement agreeing to pay ₹40 lakh. The Supreme Court had to determine whether such a statement could override the fundamental principles governing bail.
3. Do bail conditions under CrPC Sections 437-439 allow financial recovery mechanisms?
– The apex court examined whether bail-granting courts could act as recovery agents for private complainants by imposing financial conditions.
Important Observations of the Court
1. Financial conditions cannot be a prerequisite for bail
– The Supreme Court categorically rejected the financial condition imposed by the Sessions Court, stating:
“The courts, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/pre-arrest bail, are not expected to act as recovery agents for realization of dues of the complainant from the accused.”
– The court emphasized that such financial conditions violate established legal precedents and judicial principles.
2. Voluntary statement of accused does not justify illegal bail conditions
– The Supreme Court noted that the Bombay High Court misinterpreted the Sessions Court’s ruling.
– The court clarified:
“No doubt the appellant had made a voluntary statement to make payment, but that was not the sole reason which weighed in the mind of the Sessions Judge to grant bail.”
– It held that bail must be granted on legal principles, not on voluntary monetary commitments made by the accused.
3. Precedents prohibiting financial conditions in bail orders
– The court cited multiple Supreme Court judgments, reinforcing the principle that financial conditions cannot be imposed in bail orders:
– Ramesh Kumar vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) 7 SCC 461
– St. George Dsouza vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1940
– Dilip Singh vs. State of M.P. & Anr. (2021) 2 SCC 779
– These precedents reaffirm that bail conditions must align with the law and not serve as a mechanism for enforcing monetary claims.
Decision of the Court
Based on the above observations, the Supreme Court:
Set aside the Bombay High Court’s order dated September 19, 2024.
Revived Criminal Applications No. 316 and 317 of 2024, directing the High Court to reconsider them in accordance with legal principles.
Directed that no coercive action be taken against the appellant until the High Court decides the applications afresh.
Ordered that the parties appear before the Bombay High Court on March 7, 2025, to avoid procedural delays.
Clarified that its observations were only for the disposal of the appeal and did not reflect any opinion on the merits of the case.
